Anthropologists In Violence

Participation of Anthropologists in Violence
Name:
Institution:
Participation of Anthropologists in Violence
Violence is a form of aggression that involves the use of physical force against a person, a group or a community that leads to psychological harm, injury or death. Violence can be verbal or physical. There are different types of violence, which include religious, structural, and domestic violence. The amount of violence and its manifestation in various societies vary substantially. Some societies are perceived to be without violence while others are said to be violent, based on perspectives drawn from other societies. Violence is regarded as a culturally and socially constructed demonstration of an insignificant attribute of human
existence. Hence, there is no fixed kind of violence. Its manifestation is as transformative and flexible as the people and cultures that exercise and suffer from it. This is regardless of whether violence serves a purpose in the society in which it is exercised. Violence is not often accepted or culturally mandated, but it can be. Anthropologists may use violence for what they see as illegitimate or legitimate reasons. These reasons are seldom the same from one culture to another or from one situation to another. Cultural factors like economics, gender, social class, politics and religion influence the use of violence in society. These factors differentiate segmented from non-segmented cultures and they cause social substitutability and violence in segmented cultures.
The pervasive intergroup hostility framework has been prevalent among scientific communities and the public because anthropologists have pacified the past.
However, when anthropologists are in marginalized culture, which might be the result of vulnerability to multiple risk factors, they are always negotiating a social world with its own risks, structure of social goals and behavior-related values. This high risk social world always turns out to be the governing or customary social context in the sense of associated doxa and Bourdieu’s habitus. In this case, violence may have several instrumental and positive attributes. More importantly, violence is an integral part of this setting per se and not risk behavior. Therefore, the characteristics of the circumstance generate ongoing rationales and motivation for engaging in violence. This perspective is different from the output model of risk exposure-behavior that is common in social science. Furthermore, violence itself as a social practice is admired when it is in designated domains. The interaction between behavior, which is socially valued, and its insertion within high risk contexts where fewer behavioral options exist to put it in perspective, has potential to amplify violence (Rogers,
2001).
An ethical obligation shared by every anthropologist is to do no harm. However, anthropologists have witnessed or found themselves in grievous circumstances in the course of their fieldwork. These encounters are frequent in anthropology. Therefore, it is necessary for an anthropologist to participate in violent activities when it is perpetrated in return of other violence. Violence comes in different forms including verbal and physical. In its modest form, it is justified to return the same violent response as self-defense. In a more intrepid version of using violence as self-defense any kind of violence is justified provided there is an honest use of the violence exerted in self-defense. For instance, retaliatory violence is justified. Therefore, anthropologists may even be allowed to respond to violence, provided the violence used does not exceed that, which seems a just payoff, enough to ensure self-defense. The use of violence as self-defense is that the possibility of future violence perpetrated against an anthropologist gives them sufficient reason to practice violence against the potential offender. The defender must not transcend the amount of violence applied by the opponent as long as life has not been threatened. Drawing the line between immoral and moral behavior is not easy. Anthropologists have conduced to destroying the myth of cosmopolitan ethical and moral standards. Ethics insist that violence should never be used, and that anthropologists must strive for an ideal conduct that violence never figures whether that conduct is achievable or not. On the other hand, idealistic ethics would not work perfectly in practice. This is because, in practice, humans are violent. Hence, trying to have behavior that is non-violent is destined to fail (AAA, 2012).
Violence is regrettable, but sometimes it is a necessary evil.
It must be driven by righteous ideals or it will hurt the innocent. Political violence is the use of force to bring change in government. Therefore, anthropologists are allowed to use violence against political violence to oust a tyrant. The overthrow of a government should be seen as a mass social interaction and should not be shrouded as political violence. Society is a representation of people who have rights which do not change. In this respect, anthropologists have to consider the activities involved in a coup and evaluate the relation to the rule of non-aggression. It is inevitable that the only casualties will be the oppressors. Even if it was possible to use a destabilization effort that does not initiate violence against the oppressors, they will be posing an imminent threat. Violence is not an ideology; it is tactic anthropologists can use when there are few options. They can use it to maintain order and dignity for people to keep their campaign in that system moving. Sometimes, when the authorities ignore matters of the citizens, or when there is a transcendence to suppress their rights, culture or beliefs, and peace, talks may not work. Therefore, there is no option left apart from violence to force the authorities to oblige. A violent revolution is only legitimate if there is democratic representation for all or most of the state’s population (Schmidt & Schroeder, 2001). What matters is not just
the violence as an action, but the justification and reasoning that put it within a moral framework.
Violence must never be the initial option, but it is unrealistic to propose that it is not necessary in any situation. To be able to extract information from unwilling people, sometimes it is necessary for violence to be used. Even though it is not prudent from a humanitarian perspective, it has proved to be beneficial in many instances where information is needed from reluctant criminals or extremists. However, this must be the last resort after all other attempts have failed. Also, if anthropologists immerse themselves in contexts of violence via participant observation with the purpose of studying the perpetrators of violence, they are likely to become associated with the perpetrator.
Violence is only appropriate if anthropologists can justify their actions based on the context. The context includes the system of justice in place. Furthermore, violence should be used wisely to ensure there is minimal collateral damage. For instance, war is a form of violence that countries use to defend themselves against their enemies. Anthropologists should work closely with the military in various contexts that would ensure better policy-making processes. However, taking part in counter-insurgency work is not often the right way of making anthropologists policy-relevant because it runs the chance of harming communities and imposing collateral damage on anthropology’s reputation. Armed ethnography threatens to suck anthropologists in situations where they will only be allowed to speak about their work to choose audiences, rather than engrossing in a free exchange of knowledge which has always defined anthropological research (Eller, 2005).
Religious violence is the violence against religious establishments. It does not refer to acts done by religious groups but also acts done by secular groups against particular religious groups. Most religions are opposed to violence. Unfortunately, it is common for people to use religious violence by asserting that it is about politics and resources. It is true that other elements usually exist, but the bare presence of politics and resources as a factor does not mean that religion is not involved. There is no religion that has doctrines that justify violence. Followers of different religions commit violent acts seeking to justify them by appealing to religion. Religious systems are like any other complex ideology which means they do not force certain conclusions. Anthropologists are allowed to use violence against religious violence because it is wrong. Violence is not a deviant behavior but an outcome of it, and is often a solution to human problems. Anthropologists are justified to use it as long as it is necessary for their survival (Eller, 2005).
The future of anthropology depends on the empirical inquiry of violent processes. Violence is difficult to define and can be associated with anthropology as a meaningful action of cross-cultural study. The use of violence upon the impression of actions is a constitution of society. To understand violence as an action, an anthropologist must understand the perpetrator’s perspective because violence gives limited understanding if focused too much on the victim. Society comes in to being via actions that convey subjective meaning that open ways for relativistic positions. Anthropologists are allowed to exercise violence if it benefits the society as a whole. It is hard to assess the cost of violence because the risks are always higher. Although violence can be avoided, unfortunately, in several circumstances it is the only option that can be used to achieve desired results.

References

Balandier, G. (1986). An Anthropology of Violence and War . International Social Science Journal , 499-511.
Eller, J. D. (2005). Violence and Culture: A Cross-Cultural and Interdisciplinary Approach . Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Ghassem-Fachandi, P. (2009). Violence: Ethnographic Encounters. Oxford : Berg Publishers.
Krohn-Hansen, C. (1994). The Anthropology of Violent Interaction. 367-381 , 367-381.
Schmidt, B., & Schroeder, I. (2001). Anthropology of Violence and Conflict. Berlin: Routledge Publishers.